Balta1701

Teahen with a solid single to CF.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:49 PM) According to his testimony Giambi started taking roids around 2000-2001. I don't believe this for a millisecond.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) The Senate is not going to flip. There is no way the GOP is going to get 10 pickups and the Democrats 0. I could see a 5-1 roll. The house is more in flux. But I still think a 20 seat loss is more likely than a 40 seat one, and I think Speaker Pelosi will keep her chair. Frankly, I have no idea how things are going to play this fall, especially after actually passing the damn thing.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:31 PM) They wont get Congress or the WH if they run on repealing the parts of the bill concerning pre-existing conditions or the age limits. And if, hypothetically, they were to succeed and repeal everything except those incredibly popular provisions...in 2 years, we woulnd't have any insurance companies left

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) But ACORN is disbanding. You think that would stop the Senate Republicans?

Teahen with a couple hard hit balls

One of the first amendments the Republicans have offered to the Senate bill (offered by Capitol Hill Hooker guest David Vitter) is a bill to de-fund the group known as "ACORN".

Sandoval's just beating Floyd up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 04:30 PM) Obama, apparently. Here's an intro discussion of some of the constitutional type opinions. It's a blog, so beware 2k5, but it's informed and on subject.

Early 1-0 lead for the Giants on a Sandoval double.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) i thought they were pissed about medicaid. Either way, they won't win. Unless they can convince the courts that 200 years of judicial precedent has not happened, and it's just post marbury v. madison. The specific thing that they'd challenge is the existence of the "individual mandate" which they could say the federal government can't do, that only a state could do that (i.e. mandating car insurance). Normally, I'd say that between the several hundred years of precedent about how wide Congress's power in the interstate commerce clause is and how deeply Congress has previously been involved in health care, I wouldn't worry. Except, this is the Roberts court. I think deep down, a whole lot of people could see justice Roberts deciding that everything in the past 150 years of regulation of business was actually illegal and tossing out every regulation Congress has ever written.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:38 PM) I think it is sad when a couple employees' actions cause an entire organization to fold. That is bad news for a lot of people. Imagine if today you lost your job because someone in a remote office ripped off a customer. No fault of your own, but you are as much out of work as the guilty person(s). I think it's sad when those employees try to actually help the person out of the mess they're in, then they get demonized based on edited video. Imagine if you lost your job because someone edited a video of you trying to do it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) you did because it provided cover for a lot of the 55-60 dem. sen votes. If those were in, those 5 sens. wouldn't have voted for it, and it couldn't have passed. Political realities. Great example would be Evan Bayh. Getting him to vote Yes on the Senate Bill Filibuster was a very narrow thing as it is. And Eli Lilly happens to be a huge employer in his state.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) So now a republican has to save the day because of a bad deal the democrats made all the while saying they were saving their people money? Quite frankly, I think eventually it'll be a different Democratic leader who winds up allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, maybe even someone originating it in the Congress. The Republicans had zero interest in doing that in 2003 when it could have saved them a hundred billion or two on their bill, and I see zero reason to think that's changed.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) There are plenty of other liberal organizations that aren't corrupted like Acorn was. And as soon as any of them try to register non-white people to vote, Fox News will declare them equally corrupt and an enemy of the state.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) Wasn't part of the deal with the drug companies to ban some foreign drug imports or something to that effect? I'd have to look that up because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this, but if that is the case, that's not creating a level playing field, it's slanting it in the American drug companies favor. The deal with the drug companies was that this reform bill and the Obama administration would not push drug re-importation or allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices in exchange for them supporting the bill and cutting their prices over 10 years by the equivalent of $85 billion. There's nothing in that deal that would stop a Congressperson from successfully pushing that in a bill or having Obama's 2012 opponent try to back him into supporting it. However, that would require a Republican who was willing to take on the Drug industry.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) What the GOP needs to do is come up with a VERY solid and robust alternative to those options and maybe... just MAYBE you can make massive changes. But it has to be a REAL solid and well documented and well supported plan. The sad thing is...so many of the key ideas were GOP ideas, it's going to be hard for them to find things that they can do otherwise. Individual mandates (GWB1, Romney used them), for exmaple.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) One of the worries I have with the offense is if Pierre isn't getting on base at least at a .340 clip, will they make a change. Almost certainly not. .340 isnt' awful. Cabrera only put up a .334 in 2008 and we still took the division with a decent offense. If he's putting up a .310, maybe, because that would be a real legit slump.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) My guess is this: "not bloody likely" Seriously, it's really hot right now, but in 2 years, they would be repealing really popular things. Campaigning on "you should lose your insurance" is probably not going to be a winning issue.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) 50 to 60 million? that is just a guess Last year, we were at about $100, they were at about $60.

He's our Principal Skinner.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) I think De Aza sticks around and we reassign Nix actually. Unless De Aza can play 3b, I'd be really surprised.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) So why not do both in 6 months? Because if you institute the mandates and at the same time do not set up and start up both the exchanges AND the subsidies for the unemployed/uninsured/poor, you break the system just as completely, because you're fining poor people for not buying insurance that costs more than they make per year. A phase-in for the exchanges really is the requirement that slows things down. Gives everyone time to develop plans that can be sold in them, gives all the states time to set rules, make deals with other states, etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) Has anyone heard a good reason why the pre-existing/cap exclusion parts of this bill aren't applicable to adults for another 4 years? Because if you apply that 100% without simultaneously applying the mandate/fines for not carrying insurance, you bankrupt every insurance company.